If at first you don't succeed...[edit]

If a page has been tagged for speedy deletion (let's say under G11), and an administrator declines it and explains why they don't feel it meets the criteria, and the same page gets tagged under the same criteria by a different tagger, and a different administrator declines it and explains again why they don't feel it meets the criteria, and it then gets tagged under the same criteria again by a third tagger, and this time it gets deleted (no substantive changes to the text of the page in all of this) - is it just me, or has something gone wrong somewhere in this process? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's certainly not how it's supposed to work. Speedy deletion is only for indisputable cases, and if two sysops have disputed it, it clearly wasn't indisputable. WP:CSD, which is policy, is pretty clear that "[i]f an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used", and it also notes that "[a]dministrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases". I of course don't know the specific details of the situation you're referring to, but if you don't think G11 is met, I'd encourage you to talk to the deleting admin and, if you don't get a satisfactory answer, take it to WP:DRV, which in my experience tends to interpret the criteria very reasonably. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV is not, in practice, particularly welcoming to complaints that G11 was used when it should have been deleted via another process, PROD or XfD. In theory, it should review, but in practice many DRV reviewers focus on the outcome and tolerate some level of process flexibility, as long as the outcome is objectively correct. In cases of wrong process getting to the right outcome, I will raise the issue directly with the admin, usually via a ping, but not seek to make a case of it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second tagger, citing the same criteria, requires a WP:SLAP. They should have checked the history. Once declined, that tagging is known to be objectionable and it should not be tried again. If there is new information, such as discovered proof for G12, then cite the new proof, and that’s good. A third tagging on the same criteria? Being them all here for a discussion, because something is systematically wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is subjectivity in G11 calls. However, taggers and admins are supposed to check the history, and speedy deleting following a recent speedy deletion tag decline is objectively a failure to check the history for both the tagger and the admin who deletes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New essay: G5 is not a firm rule[edit]

Hi all. I have written a new user essay that expresses my view on how WP:G5 should be interpreted: see User:Mz7/G5 is not a firm rule. I am a relatively active WP:SPI administrator, so I find myself using G5 a lot when I respond to nonconstructive content created by sockpuppets of blocked users. I've been noticing that there have been a decent number of discussions lately that express concern over the use of G5: specifically, when administrators appear to indiscriminately delete helpful new pages without regard for their quality just because they were created by a blocked user. I hope that this essay is helpful in addressing those concerns, and I would invite your thoughts. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that there is a philosophical divide on G5 deletion of helpful pages. Ignoring seemingly "helpful" pages which are in reality hoaxes/copyvio/fake sources, there is a school which considers the deterrent effect more important than the quality of the deleted article and another with the opposite weighting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the divide really is different opinions on what being banned (i.e. not allowed to edit) should mean in practice. When a banned editor creates a sock and edits, should we (a) block the sock and treat the edits exactly like those of a non-banned editor (keep the good stuff, delete the bad stuff) or should we (b) block and enforce the "not allowed to edit" by indiscriminately revert/delete everything. There are editors in camp (a) who think that bans should only be a shortcut for faster blocking of socks. I find that utterly pointless: if we want an editor's contributions, we should just unban them instead of encouraging them to change username all the time. So I'm in camp (b): banned editors are not allowed to make edits, including good edits, so we should reject all of their edits regardless of quality and without triage. —Kusma (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an important consideration of volunteer time. Perhaps ideally constructive edits should be kept, but requiring editors to assess whether something is constructive or not means that the banned editor is taking up even more community time then they already are, time that could be better spent elsewhere. The worst case are edits that appear constructive, but really aren't. Handling these without spending perhaps hours is one of the tasks which G5 really helps with. SPI is almost perennially backlogged as it is. I'd be interested in some examples of reckless G5 application that this essay is meant to address, in my experience there is a tendency towards caution rather than towards deletion. CMD (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments are fine but the real reason to support deleting contributions from a banned user is WP:DENY. If socks make good contributions without exposing themselves, no one will know or care. It's because they do expose themselves that we know they are trolling and won't stop unless bored by DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What that view misses is that we are here to build an encyclopaedia. If an edit improves the encyclopaedia then deleting it harms the project and disadvantages our readers for no benefit. There is this view that a contribution from a banned or blocked user is always bad and taints the project even if the exact same edit made by a user in good standing would be an unarguable improvement, yet nobody has ever been able to offer any explanation of how or why this could be the case, let alone demonstrated that it actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis already supplied exactly such an explanation. It harms the encyclopedia in that it allows the persistent user who was blocked because of what was judged to be the net harm their efforsts were producing to continue to participate as though there were no block except for the inconvenience to them of constantly creating new accounts to circumvent sockpuppet blocks. And I can tell you that there are numerous users who have had no problem creating account after account after account after account after account. These are users whose every edit, if we don't conduct blanket reversions of all of them, would call for individual scrutiny because we already know their record. This is a drain on the time of people who could be focused, instead, on edits by users who haven't been blocked. This is of negative value to the encyclopedia.

For example, we have user Honduras200010 whose sockpuppet record is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Honduras200010. A block was finally put on the /23 IP range that this user had been contributing from anonymously—this range is virtually exclusive to this person—after I'd spent two and a half months reverting all their characteristic edits to climate information and addition or replacement of images in articles. The user's block was occasioned by bad edits of these types. I am not going to spend all my time judging every new edit by this person to see whether, by any chance, it happens to be correct information rather than misinformation, or whether a new image placed by them is appropriate or better than the previous image. The person's record speaks for itself. I revert all. Were any of this user's block-evading contributions useful? Maybe. But the encyclopedia is no worse off than it would be if that user hadn't been breaking the rules, and it's better off for my time and that of others being devoted more productively to examining edits by non-blocked users.

And it, net, improves the encyclopedia by discouraging these people's continued attempts. It isn't 100%, as witness the case of Honduras200010, but, for example, the user whose case history is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PHAM VIET DUNG finally gave up, as have others. Activity by the user whose case history is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drewpalazzolo hasn't disappear completely but it's slowed down considerably, and I'm supposing that all the reversions were sufficiently frustrating to bring that about.

On rare occasions I've looked at a particular sockpuppet edit and noticed that it was obviously an improvement—a grammar or spelling correction, typically. Those, I've left. Largoplazo (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your last two sentences contradict the entire rest of what you wrote - you can't have it both ways "if the edits are a clear improvement I don't revert them" and "I'm going to revert every edit whether its an improvement or not". Wikipedia is not a battleground where you have to fight people until they give up, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If an edit improves the encyclopaedia it doesn't matter who made it, if an edit doesn't improve the encyclopaedia it doesn't matter who made it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you might have thought it's a contradiction, so let me clarify. To identify an editor as a block evader, I have to have examined some of their edits to be able to conclude that it's the same person as the blocked user. In that case, I'm not reverting bona-fide corrections. Once I know the user is a sockpuppet, and generally after I've reported the account or IP address as such, then I no longer examine their individual edits, I treat them outright as a person whose edits shouldn't have been made, and revert them. Largoplazo (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight - you start off by recognising that they can make edits that improve the encyclopaedia, and let them stand because doing so benefits the project. But then you stop doing that because something entirely irrelevant to their edits means that you no longer care about whether edits are good or bad? Determining whether someone is or is not a sockpuppet is somehow more important to you than improving the encyclopaedia? Can you really not see why this is fundamentally incompatible with building an encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of having blocked them is that their edits on the whole have been judged to be a net detriment. Therefore, I am not going to keep readjudicating, every single time that person returns under a new guise, whether that person's participation is still a net detriment. Otherwise, why do we block anybody? Are you opposed to blocking? If you support blocking, do you believe that allowing blocked people, whose participation has already been judged to be a net detriment to the encyclopedia, to continue editing is a net benefit to the encyclopedia? You're speaking in fallacies. Largoplazo (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting 9 bad edits and somehow catching 1 okay one in the process is already a net benefit to the encyclopaedia, and that doesn't include the time you have freed up to go make new benefits elsewhere that isn't being spent going through 10 edits to find the one okay one. CMD (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If a sock account makes, say, 50 edits and it takes you looking through the first ten edits to determine they're a sock you're not obligated to go back through those ten edits to revert the typo fixes the banned sock account did. Neither are you obligated to sift through edits 11 through 50 to determine which are "helpful" and which are whargarble. You can just go and revert them all once the culprit's sockitude has been established. If someone else wants to wring their hands and bemoan the loss of a couple of innocuous edits made only to disguise the sock as a legitimate account then they're welcome to take responsibility for them. But they can't impose that responsibility on anyone else. Reyk _YO! 02:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed footnote for clarifiying A10 and R3[edit]

I propose adding a footnote for CSD A10 and R3, based on a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_166#Define_"recently"_for_CSD_R3:

The definition of recent is intentionally flexible since some pages may receive more notice than others, but a good rule of thumb is that pages created in the past 30 days are likely to qualify as recently created.

Is the proposed wording sound? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support yes while there may be no firm rule it at least gives a rough idea, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Catgegory:Molloy College alumni I asked if a page created over a year ago qualifies as "recent" so if some people think it means only a few days and others think it can mean over a year we need some clarity. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes and no. While I like the idea of offering some guidance I think it would be better to frame it as a negative and more blurry - something like "pages older than about 3-6 weeks are unlikely to be considered recently recreated; pages older than about 3-4 months almost never are. Higher profile pages are considered recently created for shorter periods than those with a lower profile.". Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree there should be some sort of guidance on this, don't really care what the guidance says. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a footnote in Special:Diff/1094064144 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specific examples[edit]

All A10 and R3 deletions of pages more than 2 months old in 2022, from quarry:query/61997. Include a few false positives, so each entry should be looked at manually.

Page	Deleting admin	Edit summary	Timestamp
Stateship	Kaihsu	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220113153912
Typhoon Maliksi (disambugation)	Wbm1058	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220120142112
List of number-one singles of 198 (UK)	Mahagaja	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220126210220
High-Level Shading Language/old	Wbm1058	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220129155506
Talk:High-Level Shading Language (version 2)/old	Wbm1058	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220129155823
Isso, Itlay	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220203042327
Favorite (Vampire	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220203224815
Jim Fleming (rugby union,	Spinningspark	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220206114746
ENERGY NUSA DERENDA	Anthony Bradbury	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: G6: The name of this song is "Energy" and this page was created via an improper disambiguation technique in 2007. Trivial page history as it was quickly moved to a proper title.	20220209221841
House of Jagat Seth (Mueseum)	Wbm1058	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220214230821
File:TAS road A10.svg	Liz	Expired PROD, concern was: Unused. Superseded by File:AUS Alphanumeric Route A10.svg (used by Template:AUshield)	20220215215607
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/New Zealand Register of Acupuncturists	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220220054306
Wikipedia:Lauren Cohen	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220221011753
Donald Tramp	PhilKnight	Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria R3, G10	20220222161335
TimedText talk:Tertiary Sources	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220301065258
Encanto (dab)	Wbm1058	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: unnecessary disambiguation redirect; only Encanto (disambiguation) is necessary	20220301155803
User:Mukt/sandbox	Nthep	WP:A10 Thanjavur student suicide case	20220306173215
Al-Baqi Cemetry	Primefac	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: typo in title	20220316114659
Draft talk:ER305	Liz	G8: Talk page of deleted page "Draft:ER305"	20220318173707
File:BBenHDR3.jpg	Explicit	This file is now on Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BBenHDR3.jpg (moved with FileImporter).	20220324120309
Draft:VE Commercial Vehicles	Bbb23	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220325132542
Coppa (disambiguation	Wbm1058	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220330230900
Cherokee grammar.html	Maile66	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220403194719
File:R32 Subway on New York E Line.jpg	Explicit	This file is now on Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:R32_Subway_on_New_York_E_Line.jpg (moved with FileImporter).	20220411033959
Dhansika	Deb	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220417120732
Catrgory:Indian COVID-19 vaccines	DaGizza	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: created in error	20220419122354
Oneitis	Anthony Bradbury	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424215708
Biochim Biophys Acta Specized Sect Nucleic Acids Relat Subj	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Enzymol. Subj.	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
IUCN/SSC Primate Specist Group Newsl	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
J. Health Spec.ties	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
J. Indian Acad. Dent. Spec.ist Res.	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
J Indian Acad Dent Specist Res	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
Indian J Med Specities	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
J Health Specties	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
IUCN/SSC Primate Spec.ist Group Newsl.	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
Indian J. Med. Spec.ities	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Nucleic Acids Relat. Subj.	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
Biochim Biophys Acta Specized Sect Lipids Relat Subj	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Lipids Relat. Subj.	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
Biochim Biophys Acta Specized Sect Enzymol Subj	Liz	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220424233948
Air Elements	Rosguill	This qualifies for WP:G7 and WP:R3	20220430190434
Rfdutcher1/sandbox	CambridgeBayWeather	A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Laurie Toby Edison	20220512043653
Sferical category	Athaenara	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220512073441
Servia Strong	Ponyo	Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria R3, G7. Rationale: Typo when moving page	20220525195826
Glavni grad Hrvatske	Joy	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: Croatian phrase for "Capital city of Croatia" which just won't appear in English articles	20220530183346
Hrvatska metropola	Joy	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: Croatian phrase for "Croatian metropolis" which just won't appear in English articles	20220530183610
Mali Beč	Joy	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: Croatian phrase for "Little Vienna" which just won't appear in English articles	20220530183812
At Carthage's Church, Lismore	GB fan	R3: Recently created, implausible redirect	20220602181833

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Maliksi (disambiguation)Looking at a sample of those:

• The three Croatian phrases deleted by Joy redirected to Zagreb (the capital city of Croatia) should have been discussed rather than speedily deleted - a quick glance at google results shows that it's plausible they are plausible search terms. Whether they were recently created is irrelevant.
• I can't quite figure out what is happened regarding Sferical category but it looks like it could have been speedily deleted under either G3 (vandalism) or G6 (obviously created in error) neither of which have a time stamp. Time limit for R3 was irrelevant.
• Servia Strong - G7 applied (as did G6), so R3 time limit is irrelevant
• Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Lipids Relat. Subj. and similar G6 and G7 applied and there was also consensus for deletion at RfD, R3 is irrelevant
• File redirects should not, per WP:FILEREDIRECT, be routeinely deleted and I'm not sure at a glance how those redirects were implausible? File:TAS road A10.svg was actually deleted as an expired PROD, so doesn't seem to belong in this list?
• The edit creating Typhoon Maliksi (disambuguation) was a move reverted by the same editor 2 minutes later, and that editor has had multiple warnings about disruptive page moves. If it was neither a mistake (G6) or vandalism (G7) then it should go to RfD for discussion.
• Donald Tramp, deletion explicitly cited G10 so R3 and its time limit is irrelevant.
• user:Mahagaja needs a WP:TROUT (if not a whale) for List of number-one singles of 198 (UK) - 12 years cannot be considered recent under any reasonable circumstances whatsoever. The only reason nothing stronger than an aquatic creature is needed is that the page was speedily deletable under criterion G6 given the very obvious typo in the title was corrected by a further move less than a minute later.

So in summary, all of the ones I looked at either should not have been speedily deleted or were (or should have been) deleted under a criterion without a time limit. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the file appeared there is that the string "A10" is in the deletion reason, which was sufficient to include it in my query. Likewise for File:BBenHDR3.jpg and File:R32 Subway on New York E Line.jpg (where "R3" got included in the name of the new file on Commons) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping - sorry, but no. Just because something is an existant phrase in a foreign language that does absolutely not mean that the English encyclopedia should have redirects for it; the onus for making one should be on the person creating them, not on the people who find them littering the landscape afterwards. I actually found that the same person created a whole slew of these kinds of redirects there, and I only cleaned up a fraction of them. If we were to entertain this argument in a way that prevents even this modest kind of a cleanup, that would be a slippery slope into bureaucratic madness. The reason I chose that deletion reason was that it seemed the most relevant, but even if it wasn't there, I would have found another one from the list of available ones. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN is clear that some redirects from foreign languages are good and useful when there is a clear connection between the language and the target - Croatian terms for Croatian places clearly have that connection. I don't know whether these were useful terms, I haven't looked in enough detail, but what I saw is enough to say that they might be useful and so should not be speedily deleted. If you don't think they should be present then nominate them at RfD - that's what it's there for. Speedy deletion is absolutely not for getting rid of things you dislike, deleting anything that is not clearly by both the letter and spirit of one or more criteria is an abuse of administrative actions. Deleting potentially plausible redirects like that is not "cleanup" it's harming the project. Shoehorning pages into speedy deletion criteria that they are not unquestionably and uncontroversially covered by is abuse of your admin privs and if you are doing that then you must stop immediately or face being desysopped. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this discussion is giving me whiplash. You're referencing an essay that literally contradicts your argument. It says common terms aren't supposed to be used for redirect, and that there should be well-grounded rationales for redirects. "Glavni grad Hrvatske" means "Capital city of Croatia" in Croatian. The editor who made the redirect left no rationale whatsoever (WP:ES comes to mind as well). Why are you arguing for this without using any kind of a basic sanity check on your argument first? This would be a search term for maybe a 6 year old Croatian reader, because this is kindergarten/early elementary school common knowledge for Croatian speakers. So we're supposed to be catering to a reader who can somehow both formulate such a concept, find the English Wikipedia search box and be able to both spell and to type well enough to initiate this search query, only to find themselves at an English-language non-simple encyclopedia article about this topic that they could then derive some value from. Somehow. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more preposterous situation being argued for. The fact that I'm responding to this kind of a zero-knowledge argument, and being threatened by sanctions on top of it - is beyond preposterous. Please stop wasting everyone's time on this, it's just silly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what on earth is "preposterous" about asking you to follow speedy deletion policy? This really isn't giving me confidence if your ability as an administrator. There is not, never has been, and should not be, a requirement for someone to leave a detailed explanation of their edit. We assume good faith. That some foreign language terms are useful search terms is because they are ones that English-speaking readers will encounter and look up (and I don't know what you find problematic about six year olds). The point is not that these are plausible, the point is that they might be and so are not eligible for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for the most obvious cases, and these are not obvious. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last couple of decades, I've been the one advocating giving due weight to foreign-language concerns, but this time I have to be the one to argue that foreign language claptrap should not be given undue weight... the only reason those three redirects weren't deleted many moons prior to me doing it is that nobody who cares noticed, and took the modicum amount of effort to run these words through google translate, to see how glaringly implausible they are. This is not a productive discussion at this point, and I'm going to do my best to disengage now, because it's probably just a distraction from whatever useful point was being made in the rest of the discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: The entire point of speedy deletion is that neither you nor anybody else gets to be the sole determiner of what is and isn't "crap". The reason the time limit for R3 exists is because the longer something has existed the greater the probability that multiple have seen the redirect and determined that it is either useful or insufficiently problematic to need deletion. If you can't understand this then please hand in your admin bits before you do something that gets them taken off you. Following policy is not optional. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to deal with probabilities here, you should be able to see these inside Pageviews and see if you're correct or not. Sadly, that doesn't seem to work right now after deletion. I'll go undelete these three for the purposes of this exercise so we can try to see if the database of that information is still intact. (I'm going to ignore the continued threats to remove my admin bits, it's just so nonsensical, I don't know what to say to that any more that would be useful.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go, after undelete it reappeared - https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Zagreb%7CGlavni_grad_Hrvatske%7CAgram_(Croatia) shows 3397017 views of the article, 93 of the 'Glavni grad Hrvatske' redirect, and 16882 for the very intricate, disambiguation-related historical name redirect Agram (Croatia) over all time (2015, which was roughly the age of the deleted redirect too). This volume certainly doesn't seem to me like something that implies the deleted redirect is plausible. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are still missing the point that these are arguments for RfD not for speedy deletion. If you don't want someone to threaten to take away your admin bits for not following policy you might try following policy. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained the rationale for why the deletion was appropriate and how I believe I was acting according to the spirit and the letter of policy, i.e. how I disagree with your assessment of these actions. If someone actually argues that this was bad for the encyclopedia and there's consensus that this was indeed so, I will have no problem with that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the easiest way to get that formal consensus is to list the redirects at WP:DRV, so I've done so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New case today: Tiger Bowl (game) by MelanieN. A10 didn't apply for reasons unrelated to not being recently-created, since it only applies to duplications of full articles rather than sections of articles and the title could have been redirected. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/pure junk" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/pure junk and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 12#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/pure junk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A9 vs other creative works[edit]

I just happened upon Jacques Cameron filmography. If this was a discography, I could've just CSD'd it under WP:A9, but instead I had to draft-ify because I don't want to waste contributor time with an AFD for an article that obviously should be deleted (it's a list of one unreleased movie by a director with a redlink).

What's the logic behind A9 being exclusive to musical recordings? WP:NOTCSD says its scope being expanded has been proposed many times, but the reasoning is unclear. Surely any filmography or bibliography where neither the author nor any of the list entries have any credible claim of significance could be pretty easily assessed? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If A9 was expanded like that then it would apply to a lot more than just filmographies and bibliographies. It would also apply to films where we don't have an article on any of the cast or crew, and books where we don't have an article on the author. I suspect it's a lot easier for a film to be notable even if none of the actors in it is notable than for a song to be notable if the singer isn't notable. Hut 8.5 07:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hut 8.5: A9 applies to both musical recordings and list[s] of musical recordings. I understand why movies should not apply to A9, but I don't see why a list of movies or books shouldn't if none of the entries have articles and the list itself does not make any credible claim of significance. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the specific example, why did you not merge the filmography into Draft:Jacques Cameron? Also, moving a page to draft space with the specific intention of it being deleted without an AfD is not a valid use of draftspace. If you think a page should be deleted but it does not meet any CSD criteria then you should either leave it or take it to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: I draftified it because I think it isn't ready for mainspace; not with the intention of it being deleted (I doubt it's going to get deleted even in draftspace). A potential merge like you described would still require the page be draftified to avoid a cross-namespace redirect, so I don't really get your question? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why PROD couldn't handle that? As for the question at hand: Exactly how often are such filmographies for non-notable artists really created. Because this does not appear to happen all that often and if that is the case, any A9 expansion would violate the "frequent" rule at the top of this page. Regards SoWhy 19:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Summary deletion of BLP that is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced"[edit]

I noticed that Draft:Tom Hyland was deleted by Sdrqaz for that reason while reviewing what became User:Pppery/deletions/May 2022. While Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does indeed say that If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion, this contradicts Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, where the only relevant text is that G10 allows deletion of [...] biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, a stricter standard. This contradiction should be resolved one way or the other. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually quite a few situations where you are allowed to delete something without discussion which aren't listed here, e.g. listings at Wikipedia:Copyright problems can be deleted by the reviewing administrator after seven days if they aren't satisfied that there's no copyright violation, and you would be justified in deleting some types of content under Wikipedia:Child protection. It would not be a good idea to add a criterion for this because this material doesn't have to be deleted, deletion is only one option. Hut 8.5 17:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft page easily met the G10 standard - more clearly the "material intended purely to harass or intimidate" clause than the entirely-negative-and-unsourced clause. (Not that having about one sentence in four that wasn't a direct insult should matter anyway.) There wasn't particular need to resort to the more contentious WP:BLPDEL standard. —Cryptic 18:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I vacillated between G10 and BLPDELETE at the time because I viewed it as a borderline-ish case of whether it was entirely negative and unsourced. I recognise that others would probably have just deleted it under G10, but I thought that BLPDELETE (as the "broader" of the two) would be a better log summary. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-deleting a redirect created during cleanup of page move vandalism[edit]

I'm intending to nominate a redirect under WP:G3 (hoax/vandalism), but in this case the "page creator" was cleaning up after page move vandalism by someone else, and therefore the message at {{Db-vandalism-notice}} doesn't seem appropriate. Is it necessary to use this template in the page creator's talk page, or is there a better template to use in this case? (Or is it not necessary to provide a notice at all in this case?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no strict requirement to notify any editor of a page that the page has been nominated for deletion (whether it be CSD, PROD, or XFD). It is strongly encouraged, of course, but if it doesn't make sense to nominate the "creator" then you shouldn't worry about it. That being said, a non-templated note would probably work as well, just as a heads-up. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks then. I had actually wondered about that last suggestion myself, so I'll probably do that. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]